We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2016
Between the years 1611 and 1620, a number of books supporting the Jacobean Oath of Allegiance were printed in London at the instigation of the English Government. The author's name on the title-pages of these books was given generally as “Roger Widdrington, an English Catholic”, sometimes simply as “Roger Widdrington”. Some of the books were in English, others were in Latin. Taken together, they represent what was probably the most learned and formidable defence of the Oath composed by any pen then active. At that time, the common opinion of those in a position to know, both in England and abroad, was that the name “Roger Widdrington” was a pseudonym which concealed the identity of the real author, the Benedictine priest, Thomas Preston. The modern accounts of his career given, for example, by Gillow (in his ‘Bibliographical Dictionary’) and by Thompson Cooper (in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’) accept this traditional identification.
1. English Historical Review, vol.18. 1903. pp. 116–119.
2. C.R.S. (Catholic Record Society publications), vol.33, pp. 162–3 (note).
3. State Papers Domestic, Charles I, xxvii.114. (?1625).
4. Foley, I.681.
5. C.R.S. vol.37, p.59. entry 180. Also Foster: Alumni Oxonienses. entry “Preston, Rowland.”
6. Knox: Records of the English Catholics. Douai Diaries 1 & 2. p.209.
7. Foley, VI.559. Also C.R.S. vol.37, p.59.
8. C.R.S. vol.37. p.59.
9. C.R.S. vol.33. p.162 (note) and p.174.
10. C.R.S. vol.33. p.160 (note). Downside Review Jan.1931.
11. Preston went to Mantua in 1605 to represent the Cassinese in England at the General Chapter. He is mentioned as local Superior in letters by Birkhead, Mush and John Sweet.
12. C.R.S. vol.41 (The Letters of Thomas Fitzherbert, ed. L. Hicks S.J.) contains much valuable information on the Appellants in its notes, especially those on pp.10, 81 and 93.
13. S.P.D. Jas.I, xvi, 10.
14. See article “Oaths, English Post-Reformation” by Pollen, J.H., in Catholic Encyclopedia . XI. 177 ff.Google Scholar
15. P.R.O. 31/9/123. (Roman Transcripts) Undated. This transcript should be in P.R.O. 33/9/114, which contains transcripts of letters for 1606; at present it is with the transcripts for 1620–22.
16. Tierney-Dodd, IV. App.xxiv. pp.cxxxvi-cxxxvii. Mush to anon., 11 July 1606.
17. See note 15.
Translation: a) “When I was put to the point at my interview with Cecil, and he asked me whether I was willing to take the Oath, and I assented, he proceeded to enquire which of the two oaths concerning the King's ecclesiastical supremacy I was prepared to accept – the new or the old. When I replied: ‘The new’, he drew the inference: ‘Then you refuse the old’, to which I assented, but immediately recalling that even this was held to be treason according to English law, I begged him earnestly not to proceed to force me into so dangerous a position.”
Translation: b) “Guided by the consensus of opinion of by far the majority, when I afterwards found myself in difficulties and dangers at my interview with Secretary Cecil, I confess that, to avoid being committed forthwith to prison, I yielded; and this I considered I could do with a safe conscience at a time like this when I had the backing of the opinion of so many learned men and priests, especially as I saw there was no decree about the matter by His Holiness or the Apostolic See.”
18. C.R.S. vol.33, pp.82, 83.
l8a. C.R.S. vol.33, p.88.
19. Calendar of Milanese Papers, p. 633. Also P.R.O. 33/9/123. Also C.R.S. vol.41. p.26. note 4. It would appear quite impossible that Baker, then still a novice and in close contact with his Superior, Preston, and with Beech, at the very time in question, should have failed to make clear their opposition to the Oath, had they, in fact, really opposed it. See C.R.S. vol.33, pp.88, 89.
20. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xli. pp.ccxx-ccxxi. Weldon, Collections I. pp.34–35.
21. C.S.P. Ven. 1607–1610. p.421.
22. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App. xxxiii. p. clxxiii. Nelson to More, 8 June 1611.
23. Foley, Collectanea pt.2. p.1011. c. May 1610. The Annual Letter for 10–20 June 1610 states: “The Superior of the Benedictines, with a Jesuit and three other priests, are to be publicly tried in the first sessions, and condemned to death, and perhaps all of them, at least the first, will be quickly hanged.” Was this an inspired rumour, part of Preston's build-up as a sturdy champion of the Faith?
24. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xxxiii. p. clxiii. Birkhead to Richard Smith at Rome, 18 June 1610.
25. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xxxiii. p. clxxii. Birkhead to More, 30 May 1611.
26. C.S.P. Ven. 1610–1613. p.136.
27. S.P.D. Chas.I, clxvii, 72 and 73. c.May 1630.
28. C.R.S. vol.41, p.10. note 4.
29. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xxxiii. p. clxxiii-clxxiv. Nelson to More, 8 June 1611.
29a. The Oath, however, required Catholics not merely to take the Government’s view in an open theological question but to declare that belief in the deposing power of the Pope was “heretical and damnable”. This was the crucial objection. See Pollen’s article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
30. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xxxiii. p. clxxv.
31. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xxxiii. p. clxxix. Mush to More, 19-Aug. 1611.
32. Tierney-Dodd, IV, App.xxxiii. pp. clxxxi-clxxxii. Birkhead to More, 6 Oct. 1611. After giving this news, Birkhead goes on: “I know not what to say, both in that and the taking of the oath.”
33. Westminster Archives XI.46, quoted in Anstruther: Vaux of Harrowden, pp.400–1.
34. Where Bentivoglio’s despatches for 1613–1615 are mentioned or quoted, the reference (unless otherwise indicated) is to Guido Bentivoglio, Diplomatico, ed. R. Belvederi. Ferrara, 1949. vol.2.
35. Belvederi, p.316. Report of 28 Sept. 1613.
36. Stowe MSS, (Brit. Mus.), Edmones Papers, 174. no.50.
37. Belvederi, p.333. Report of 6 Sept. 1614.
38. S.P.D. Chas.I, vi. 130. Dated 24 July 1626. (Wrongly dated in Calendar ?September 1625.)
39. S.P.D. Chas.I, xxxi. 86. Dated 16 July 1626.
40. S.P.D. Jas.I, lxxvii. 88. (Docquet S,P. 38/11.)
41. Belvederi, pp.337–8. Reports of 29 Dec. 1614 and 31 Jan.1615.
42. P.R.O. 33/9/120 (Roman Transcripts). Dated 14 Peb.1615. See also Belvederi pp.340–1. Translation: “The gist of the affair is that Preston says that the book is by Widdrington, yet he does not actually deny that it is his, thus giving further indication that he is really the author; and that he holds firm in his belief that the Oath may be taken to the King of England with a good conscience, and until the Pope makes a decision he will abide by this; that he has not himself taken the Oath, and that he is held in great respect among the Catholics and is living a virtuous life.”
43. Belvederi, p.362. Report of 11 July 1615. Translation: “When these priests had gone, it seemed that the King and the pseudo Archbishop of Canterbury hoped that the Oath would be taken in the future by a larger number of Catholics than in the past, since the only priests in prison to whom these Catholics could have recourse for the Sacraments were those in the prison known as the Clink where the Benedictine Father Preston is, and these priests hold that it is permissible to take the Oath; and therefore the King and the Archbishop believed that these same priests of the Clink would win over the Catholics to the Oath so that they might have recourse to them.”
44. P.R.O. 31/9/121A (Roman Transcripts). Dated 24 April 1616. The Spanish text of this transcript is too corrupt to be reproduced, but its meaning is clear enough.
45. Cf. The Month. July 1952, “Jacobean Playhouses and Catholic Clerics” by I.J. Semper.
46. S.P.D. Chas.I, clviii.60.
47. A bibliographical study of Preston's works is at present being prepared by Mr. D.M. Rogers for publication in Papers of the Bibliographical Society, University of Virginia.
48. Belvederi, pp.320–1. Report of 15 Feb. 1614. Translation: “A translation into English of the last book which came out under the name of Widdrington has been in course of preparation. It is understood that the translation is already finished; the purpose behind it is to do greater damage to the Catholic cause, since the said book will now have a wider circulation and will also be read by those who do not understand Latin.”
49. Kellison's work is S.T.C. 14910. “A New Yeares Gift” is S.T.C. 14049. “Strena Catholica” is not in S.T.C., though it was printed in England. (Copy at B.M.)
50. S.P.D. Jas.I, cxviii. 79.
51. Cauchie & Maeres Recueil des Instructions Generales aux Nonces de Flandres, 1596–1635, Brussels, 1904. pp.171–174. Instructions of 23 May 1627.
52. Broughton's work is S.T.C. 10415. Por Broughton's authorship see Raymund Webster's article “Richard Broughton, ‘A priest in persecution’,” in The Downside Review, vol.54, 1936.
53. S.P.D. Jas.I, cxlix. 57. Dated 26 July 1623. Secretary Conway to Secretary Calvert.
54. S.P.D. Jas.I, cxlix. 79. Dated 28 July 1623. Secretary Calvert to.Secretary Conway.
55. S.P.D. Chas.I, x. 21.
56. P.R.O. 33/9/123 (Roman Transcripts). Dated 25 July 1620.
57. Cauchie & Maere, Instructions of 23 May 1627. pp. 171–3.
Translation: a) “There has been for many years now in London a Father Thomas Preston, an English Cassinese monk who was provided with full faculties by the Apostolic See for ministering to the spiritual needs of the Catholics over there. This man, sacrilegiously abusing his ministry, has professed that he supports and defends, both by word of mouth and in writing, the impious oath which they call the Oath of Allegiance.”
Translation: b) “But Preston, though he has been warned in a number of ways in the course of many years of the gravity of his error, and has been urged to penitence, has ever continued to aggravate his contumacy and to postpone by various subterfuges and artifices the repentance and the satisfaction demanded of him, especially in regard to the pamphlets published under the name of Widdrington and others in defence of the Oath.”
Translation: c) “… to deprive Preston of his faculties and to suspend him from the execution of his office if in a short time he did not retract and make satisfaction to the Apostolic See, either by subscribing to the retractation of Father Greene, or by declaring in writing that he maintained and believed that it was in no way permissible to take the Oath, salva fide catholica et salute animarum.”
58. S.P.D. Chas.I, ccxlviii. 84. October 1633.
59. S.P.D. Chas.I, cclxvi. 75.
60. It is hoped at some later date to present the evidence for the identification of this William Howard. So far as the present writer is aware, the matter has not hitherto been examined.
61. Numerous letters from Howard to Windebank on the progress of the Embassy are to be found in the Clarendon State Papers for 1636.
62. MSS. Clarendon, V, no.340. A clerk's copy.
63. S.P.D. Chas.I, cclxvii. 74. Dated 12 May 1634.
64. This is shown by the fact that Courtney's reply was in circulation by 5 July 1634. (See next paragraph.) The book is S.T.C. 13871.
65. MSS. Clarendon, V, no. 350, Dated 5 July 1634.
66. Foley, I, 256. (From Clarendon MSS.) “I wrote not those lines for the press, nor ever published anie copie of them at all, as most unjustly is informed …”
67. Foley, I. 252. (From Clarendon MSS.) Windebank to the King, announcing Courtney's arrest and committal to the Gatehouse. Dated 29 Oct. 1634.
68. S.P.D. Chas.I, cccxvii. 36. III. 12.
69. There is a transcript to these conferences, made by Rawdon Brown from the State Archives, Venice, in the Public Record Office. P.R.O. 31/14/154 (Venetian Transcripts).
70. That this is Preston's hand is shown by a comparison with his signed letter of 10 August 1635. See note 73 below. The unsigned paper by Preston has been placed erroneously among the documents for April 1635 in the Clarendon State Papers.
71. MSS. Clarendon, VI, no.480.
72. P.R.O. 33/14/154 (Venetian Transcripts).
73. Foley, 1.260. (From Clarendon M3S.) Undated but c. 28 Dec. 1635.
74. MSS. Clarendon, VII, no. 517.
75. P.R.O. 31/14/154 (Venetian Transcripts).
76. Foley, I. 254–256. (From Clarendon MSS.) Dated 23 April 1635. And 260–262. (From Clarendon MSS.) Undated but c. 28 Dec. 1635.
77. Foley, I. 259.
78. They had shared rooms at St. John’s College, Oxford.
79. He did in fact himself take a form of oath of his own drafting which the Government accepted. His various drafts and the version finally signed by himself are among the Clarendon MSS. for 1635/6.
80. Foley, I. 253. (From Clarendon MSS.) Dated 15 April 1635. Foley has wrongly transcribed the Secretary's name as “Buccahilla”.
81. S.P.D. Chas.I, cccxxxix. 91. A draft or copy, bearing the date 1636, but with blank spaces for the day and month as well as for the King's signature. If it really belongs to 1636, the statement that Preston was 73 years old at the time is four years out, for he was actually 69. The statement that Preston was aged 73, coupled with the date 1636, is probably the cause of Thompson Cooper's assignment of Preston's birth to the year 1563 in the D.N.B. account.
82. Transcript of Conn's despatches at Farm St. p.403. Dated 11 Dec. 1637.
Translation; a) “The Father said that Preston would have come to me had he not been afraid that he would not be welcome.”
Translation: b) “I replied that he knew full well the way to make himself welcome to me and to every good Catholic.”
83. C.R.S. vol.33. pp.162–3. note. Allanson, who according to this note places Preston's death in the Clink, seems to have been unaware of the existence of the warrant referred to above.
84. C.R.S. vol.37. p. 59. entry 180. “And by the books he afterwards published in England, crammed with lax doctrine and disloyal sentiments, he caused a grave decline of concord and steadfastness among the Catholics.”
